Category talk:Genesehres System
Star Mass "Mass 1.52 getrels" You have a 56-pound star. How massive should the star really be? --Brilliand 23:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC) "Mass 1.17E30 getrels" That's the mass of the Kelos System's star, and it is a bigger system. I will fix that, I made it so that that was the total mass of both stars. --CyberCheat 11:31 AM EST, 23rd February 2007 1.17E30 is vastly more than 1.52. Don't you recognize calculator notation? 1.17*10^30 is decent for a star. I don't think the size of the star has much to do with the size of the system. What it determines is how long the planet's orbital period can be compared with its distance from the sun. --Brilliand 20:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC) No, I don't, to be truthful. I'm not exactly a math-whiz (unless C's scream genius?), so I'm very bound to make mistakes on size and mass and... eh, the works, and I'm also prone to not understanding what people good at math say. Take now, for example. Well, you do have to take into account that the size of the star almost depends on the size of the system, because to make any part of a system habitible you have to have enough room for the planets! :) Is the Kelos System a model of the solar system (somewhat, I mean)? If so, then I should be able to tweak the 1.17E30 and double it to make the sizes of Genesehres' stars, right? --CyberCheat Kelos is really darn close to the Solar System so your estimate is probably about right. Also, a star's size does not necessarily determine how many planets it has, however it will determine which one of those planets can support life. --Laveaux 07:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC) I suppose theoretically any number of planets could orbit without a star, just circling the center of the system. Although they would orbit very slowly. E30 (calculator notation) or 10^30 (scientific notation) means move the decimal point 30 spaces to the right (adding zeros when you run out of digits), so 11700000000000000000000000000000000000000. That is a very big number. ;) That is also the number you would need to put into the mathematical templates, since the wiki calculator function doesn't understand either notation (and we don't have the necessary extras installed here to convert it manually). --Brilliand 16:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Oh. I think I get it now, somewhat. There are 11 planets total in the system, 3 capable of supporting life naturally (Reex, Aragithia, Jijitris), one covered in biodomes(Pelnome), one too close to the sun to be habitible to anything but a strange race that has evolved to withstand heat (Nano), and the rest are so far out that their barren ice-rocks(none of which are on here yet). Eh, science I can do, math makes my head hurt. :)--Cheat 22:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC) So how massive should those stars be? Better fix that. --Brilliand 22:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Picture It's spectacular, but... do stars really look like that? --Brilliand 20:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC) It's probably a bit dramatic, but really hot stars with certain lenses could look like that. I think the bigger problem is that the planet is not properly lit. But there's only so much magic I can do with Photoshop plug-ins. --Laveaux 20:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Are you kidding? I love it! --Cheat 19:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)